ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Age 0-15. No contributions to SS. No benefits. Must set up a defined contribution plan(DCP) Roth Type IRA. 6% you. 6% employer or 12% you. Start collecting at age 70. DCP money yours to pass on. Educate all young on plans.

Age 16-30. 2% to SS, 4% to DCP. SS reduced by 80%. Start collecting age 69

Age 31-40. 3% to SS, 3% to DCP. SS reduced by 60%. Start collecting at age 68.5

Age 41-50. 4% to SS, 2% to DCP. SS reduced by 40%. Start collecting at age 68

Age 51-60. 5% to SS, 1% to DCP. SS reduced by 20%. Start collecting at age 67.5

All people on DCP's can contribute more that percentage shown, but only up to 6% will be matched.

Contribution numbers matched by employer or by self employed.

MEDICARE: All legal Americans will be covered by Catastrophic Insurance through single payer government. Premiums based on income but to a max of $400/momth. Covers all pre-existing conditions and stays with you for life, job or no job. Subsidize poor.

SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE: You buy an individual policy to cover basic medical care. Office visits, testing, screening, etc. All people can get covered. Buy from health insurance companies. Cost of coverage based on level of service desired (eyecare, earcare etc). Buy anywhere in country. Competitive. Don't buy? Don't get covered.

dagardenguy, it does not matter how many facts you put in front of some people, they will not believe you. They will look for ways to talk around your facts, change the subject, flat out deny the facts or just say something inane to distract you. They will wait until it's too late to reverse something and then complain like they never heard about it. We can only hope that there are enough people willing to listen and act to block the liberal progressive agenda!

I came home Tuesday afternoon. I walked outside three times yesterday with a walker. I walked outside today, with a cane. I expect to be on my own by the weekend. There is nothing wrong with healthcare in this country. There is DEFINITELY some things wrong with health insurance in this country.

WHHI, what a weak attempt to salvage the egos of liberals after the utter thrashing given to their health care plan. Libs had a total majority in the house & senate with a lib president and could not get it done. Now because the Republicans first attempt at an alternative didn't make muster you're all wet with excitement. Pathetic!

Now the dust has settled after yesterday’s lavish inauguration ceremony, President Obama will have to prove he has what it takes to lead the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. The new leader of the free world may bask in the glory of global adulation, but he will find that like George W. Bush, he will have to aggressively wield military might as well as “smart power” if he is to keep America and the world safe.

Across Europe Bush may be the most maligned president since Nixon, but his main achievements on the world stage speak for themselves: two highly successful invasions to remove hostile regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan; the liberation of 60 million people from tyranny; the humbling of al-Qaeda in Iraq; the prevention of a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the years since September 2001; the strengthening of the Anglo-American Special Relationship and a key intelligence role in the thwarting of a series of planned attacks on Britain; the dramatic expansion of NATO; the development of a third site missile defence system in Europe; the building of alliances with India and Japan, to name but a few.

Through the aggressive projection of American global power over the past eight years, President Bush has left the world a safer place. U.S. leadership is not a popularity contest, and it is far better to be feared by one’s enemies than loved, a lesson America’s next president should heed.

The creation of Homeland Security, which consolidated the intel agencies like FBI, NSA, CIA, etc. so that intel can be shared and acted on. Before, each agency was territorial and wanted to keep any intel to itself. Now all agencies have access to each other's info and gives the nation a much safer defense.

As for obstructionists, I recall some on the Dem side when the national defense was being reorganized. And let's not forget the wailing of privacy rights when terrorists were being monitored. Were any non-terrorists complaining about their phones being tapped? None that I know of.

Was the public really asking for health care reform after 9/11? And most people are still happy with their plans. According to Ramussen and Gallup, the Dem's plan for reform is not popular. So who is representing the majority opinion? Obstructionists? Really?

You guys are getting WAAAAY too deep for WHHI. The dose of reality you're presenting to him may send him off the deep end.
Obama's a political puppet and Bush was leader. In my opinion, he was definately the right man at the right time in our history.
-I can't imagine what would have happened after 9-11 had Al Gore been President.

BTW WHHI, Republican's only controlled congress for 6 years during Bush, not 8.
-The obstructionist democrats controlled the other 2.

Plus, the American people weren't asking for health care reform while he was President.
Of course, the American people weren't asking for health care reform when Obama became President either, but that isn't why he and the democrats in congress are ramming it down our throats.
-They want the POWER..........period.

I thought "Dagardenguy's" You Tube had said it all.
Did you look at it? Do you believe it? Do you think that you will be exempt from most of it along with the other guys and gals in the unions? Do you believe that you will be able to keep your doctor? No matter, what B.O. told you, he said lately that, "someone slipped something into the plan", I guess when he was not looking, that would not allow you to choose. And all the time the Dems would make you think that they are the party of Choice!
As for the price, I guess that you know that you will pay for it for 3 or 4 years before you are eligible for the actual "healthcare", in the Dems plan. Slight of hand, as usual.

why anyone in this country with all the opportunities it provides (beyond all the handouts) would agree to surrender all the freedoms so many have and continue to fight & die for while at the same time saying it's a good thing. Many of your Dem friends are now questioning the rational of going over to the far-left progressive side that Obama subscribes to in bringing down this country! Believe me the kool-aid isn't that good.

WHHI, do you really want to give up the Constitution and what it stands for? Do you really want to give the Federal Government complete and total power over your life? if yes, then what is your specific rational/justification for doing that?

Lets see,, (1) "The Obstructionist/Republican plan"
(2) "making the House Democrats look good in comparison."
comments tend to lead me to your "left" leaning support. The left = OBama, hence your veiled support for Obama. Just my convoluted thinking.

So you are saying you are a middle of the road Nader supporter and beleive in the constitution?

FYI - ABC News’ Rick Klein reports Nader, who has long advocated for a single-payer health care system, (Like OBama) hates corporations (like OBama) and is a closet progressive populist. Walks like a duck - talks like a duck - might be a duck!

Just look at his platform...........even the most wingnutted leftist would not vote for that!!!LOL Nader is most certainly "unsafe at any speed" thank heavens he's STOPPED. Thank you WHHI i now have a frame of reference for you.. Shine on my friend......LOL

Actually, I'll be quite frank and up front here...I voted for Bush (jr) over Al Gore. I didn't like him as VP, I didn't like the thought of him being president, and I'm damn glad Bush was in office when 9/11 happened and not Gore. He's done more harm than good for environmental causes across the board and, quite frankly, I don't like the sound of his voice.

I voted for Kerry in the next election simply because, by that time, I was tired of Bush's failures and his seemingly cyclopian vision towards Iraq; it was ALL about Iraq at that point, a war that I couldn't support even while I supported the war in Afghanistan. I didn't WANT to vote for Kerry; he was wishy-washy and droned like a history teacher who had one too many at the pub before coming to class. And I couldn't stand Edwards at all. But again, IMO, I was forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I cast my vote for Ron Paul knowing that it was wasted. While I didn't agree with SOME of what he planned on doing if elected, I agreed with more of what he believed in than anyone else, even Obama. There was no way I could vote for McCain. He seemed lost, a wandering skin-suit who looked like he was ready to explode, or pass out, at any given time. Plus, the flip-flops over the course of years told me that this was a man who really wouldn't make a decision.

I also liked Fred Thompson, but his entering the race so late just didn't sit well with me.

I know none of this has anything to do with this blog, but I hope it also shows that I vote for the person, not the party. That I look at both sides. And that, as I've been stating all along, I'm middle of the road and in most regards, would be considered conservative rather than liberal.

Yes WHHI, Ron Paul ran as a Republican. But what I was saying is, IF you want folks to believe that you are supposedly somewhere in the "middle", then saying that you supported Ron Paul would have been better than saying you voted for Nader.
-Voting 3rd party doesn't mean that you're "in the middle".

Psycho- I also liked Fred Thompson, but he just got in too late, and he didn't seem to have much of a spark in his campaign.
He now has his own radio show. Have you ever heard him? I listen to him when I have the time; he's on with his wife and they are actually pretty good.

I voted for McCain, not because I wanted to, but because I felt that I HAD to. I KNEW who Obama was - the information was out there for all to see if they would have taken the time to look.
And Nader? Well........there's no reason to explain why I didn't vote for Nader.

Nader...IMO, always been a flake. Ron Paul, again, had a lot to say that I liked and thus my jumping on his bandwagon.

Again, there was more that I liked about him than didn't like. McCain simply rubbed me the wrong way on just about everything.

In the upcoming election, I won't be voting for Obama...unless something dramatically is done regarding the policies. As a matter of fact, I will also refuse to vote for most of the incumbents; they've simply done nothing for far too long, on both sides, unless it benefited themselves.

It would be nice if the parties could pick a candidate that REALLY stood for something and stuck to their beliefs, someone who would be able to work with the opposition and simply GET THINGS DONE.

It's been said time and again, these yahoos do nothing until it's time for re-election, then they seem to get all gun-ho about issues, about "we the people" and what needs to be done...and what their opponent(s) haven't done while, again, not once addressing that they, too, are part of that problem.

as with bonuses earned resulting from a contract agreement to perform, or resulting from an effort to produce a product or resulting from having paid into a program.

However, not entitlements as in when someone develops a sense of entitlement and believes that he or she is “due” a position or appointment or payment because of that person’s favored or unfavored status or past associations. Nor taking money through welfare programs and not working for it, nor making Pell Grants an "entitlement program, etc, etc." Too many tax-payer funded Government give-a-way programs morph into perceived entitlements and never go away.

You're question further supports my suspicion of your left leaning tendencies. It's ok to take a liberal stand, you just need to support it better.

A pension is offered to employees for their retirement and provided by the employer, private or government. It is a part of their pay package. The only way to get a pension is to work for it and it does require a number of years of employment.

An entitlement is a government program paid for by taxpayers. Some entitlements do not require any work from the beneficiary and is "free" to the recipient.

Psycho- Fred Thompson's show is either on, AM630, 690, or 1290......I can't remember which. But it has to be one of those 3 stations because they are programmed in my car.
-He's on at the same time Rush is on, 12noon... but I can't remember which station Rush is on either.